Dear Tito Sotto, you are not a “victim” of cyber bullying or a demolition job; you are the recipient of CYBER JUSTICE!

CYBER BULLYING OR CYBER JUSTICE

Bullying is when you pick on someone for no such logical reason. Its different from asking for accountability and scutiny is not bullying. Sotto is a public official and he should be accountable and face what he said is inaccurate.

It’s cyber justice. Plagiarism may not be a crime but a moral and ethical offense. Just the same, it says a lot about the person who committed it. No, he may not be a criminal for plagiarizing, but he is dishonest and a thief. The offense is further compounded by the fact that he first denied it, then when he admitted he lifted passages from blogs, he made excuses for it. A senator who cannot even admit something he did (with clear evidence), cannot be trusted. That’s the idea. I won’t call him a criminal for plagiarizing. I’d call him dishonest. I don’t want a criminal for a senator, nor do I want a dishonest one.

Plagiarism is not a crime per se but is disapproved more on the grounds of moral offense, and cases of plagiarism can involve liability for copyright infringement.

Senator Sotto: You were EXPOSED AND CONTRADICTED on your lies and obvious plagiarism. You initiated the dialogue by making false claims and non original statements by delivering your senate speech. Internet is the modern medium to expose charlatans lie you. In bullying, the victim is always silent, unmindful of others. You were far from that status.

Sotto said: “I was the center of ridicule and malicious attacks from various individuals”

Senator Sotto: you were ridiculed because you claimed you did not plagiarize Sarah Pope. Adding insult to injury you were the first Senator to malign bloggers by telling them ” why should you quote bloggers, they are just bloggers”. Now you are expunging your plagiarized statement of the blogger on her Dr McBride quote because you know you are guilty due to the fact that your staff did not read McBride’s book. Worst, you did not either and spoke about it.

Senator Sotto: you and your staff are the scumbags of senate by denying the issue of plagiarism, defending your cause despite the position you were alone in your stand. Claiming that everybody in the senate copies the words of unpassed bills of other senators is pathetic excuse. Stealing in whatever form is wrong. Because every Philippine senator is stealing from each other does not make stealing right because you are senators. You maligned your entire colleagues. Some may not be guilty as you are.

If Sotto pointed out that there is no law against plagiarism in our country, then the Senate should push for one. We don’t want the Philippines known for its Boracay and people who plagiarized, right?

Wait, he won’t because he won’t shoot his own foot.

DEMOLITION JOB

IF THE Senator was as good as defining “plagiarism” from dictionaries with their respective meanings in his previous “turno en contra” speeches, plagiarism would have been a non issue. He should have learned his lesson that he made the Senate chamber a sit-com of sorts for his lack of literacy in public speaking supposedly befitting a Senator. It turned out to be unproductive for him.

The demolition job is a myth. He is doing a great job of ruining his reputation on his own by continuing to deny his wrongdoings.

The half-wit Senator also thinks that all media or social media opinion commenters not supportive of his stance are paid and low-lifes. He accused the RH proponents as well funded? I wonder if he bothered to check if the Anti-RH bill side is not using money?

I think Sotto was ill-advised. He should kick-out his lawyer(s). I believe plagiarism is within the context of IPP law. It is an intellectual property right and his lawyer should know this. But you know them, they can circumvent and find loopholes in the law advantageous to their own malicious bidding.

His Chief of Staff and lawyers appears unaware, or by intention to mislead, of Intellectual Property Rights law of the Philippines. Plagiarism is well within the context of this law as its violate the IP rights of the person, in this case Ms. Pope and other bloggers.

With his privilege speech, it appears that he is putting challenge to the bloggers. Its like “prove to me that I violated your rights through plagiarism” and its dangerous for him.

He and his staff are already doing a great job at self sabotage! Kailangan niya i-reprimand mga staff niya for all this giant ball of stupidity instead of adding more stupidity to the issue by not shutting up!

Then he makes another stand to “discriminate” against LGBTs by removing them / their rights and protection in the anti discrimination law. Ano baaaaaaa?! This will not be a good precedent for the supposed plan of Vic Sotto to run for a senate seat.

Sotto is desperately protecting his name and seems to be losing his mind in doing so! I’ll venture that his role in the Commission of Appointments over bypassing late Jesse Robredo’s confirmation would probably carry more weight in his undoing with the voters if he still aspire for elective position!

Where did Tito Sotto learn his morality and sense of values? At home or at Iskul Bukol’s Wanbol University?

“So we must say that those things which are discountenanced and regarded as evil and accordingly forbidden by society are immoral and that the doing of them contrary to the sentiment thus expressed involves moral turpitude”.

This is a case where the Senate Ethics Committee is at fault for allowing this kind of dangerous thinking to persist. Senator Sotto is in effect the defendant in a civil case, with bloggers and others making the charges in the only forum available to them: Their keyboards.

The Senate Ethics Committee could provide a proper, formal forum, but does not. Senator Sotto and his mouthpiece attorney are allowed to run the show and the public is given no representation because their representatives are silent.

That is the danger. That a Senator can “rant” with no opposing view allowed in the court.

“rant” = shooting your mouth off in a loud and disagreeable manner and giving him the opportunity to cheat, deceive, deny, rationalize, accuse, etc.

He is permitted what I view as unethical rights, to cheat (plagiarize), deceive (use old statistics), deny (say there is nothing wrong with what he did), rationalize (bloggers are not legitimate owners of anything), and accuse (blame bloggers for attacking him). He ought not be allowed to do these things without challenge in the court of ethics, the Senate Ethics Committee. His getting away with it is a dangerous precedent.

Mr. Sotto, PLAGIARISM may not be illegal, but it does NOT mean that it is MORAL and ETHICAL!

And how about the FREEDOM OF SPEECH ! Ipapawalang saysay mo na rin ba? Kayo lang ang may karapatang magsalita? Have you forgotten that Freedom of Speech is a Constitutional Right; and that as an elected public officer, you are subject to a public scrutiny? Anti-blogging bill- is that the most you can come out with? Curtailling our right to voice out whatever we are feeling and thinking on how the three branches of the government are managing the country? You could do more if you will humble yourself and instead of that idiotic antiblogging bill- you will introduce amendments in our antiquated Revised Penal Code. Puro kayo pasikat sa taas, bumaba nga kayo sa field para makita ninyo. Nakakayamot kayo.

WTF are these senators thinking? Do they know that blogging is a part of what we call “new media”? Alam din ba nila na even sa US is aware that the Internet ang pinakamahirap gawan ng “gatekeeping” (it’s a jargon in communication, so maybe they don’t have any idea about that) Sana if they don’t have any idea about the new media, huwag na lang silang magsalita (Enrile admitted that). The true issue here is Sotto committed a sin which we call “plagiarism”. What’s wrong about admitting his mistake and just say sorry? Ganoon ba kataas ang ego nya? Nag-thesis kaya siya at bakit hindi niya alam ang word na “plagiarism” at “attribute”? Nakaka-asar lang isipin na ganito kababaw ang mga politicians natin ngayon.

He’s confusing the people and distorting things to save his ass. He’s being blasted for his plagiarism and for being none-apologetic about it AND NOT because of his stand on the RH Bill. Even dragged EAT BULAGA into the issue. Ano ngayon kung madaming natutulungan ang EAT BULAGA? Hindi po yun ang issue! Di na lang kasi mag-sincere (kung kaya man) apology instead of trying to say he didn’t plagiarized. Technically he didn’t but his staff did and he as the leader should take responsibility for it.

Senator Sotto blasted bloggers and commenters telling him to stick with Eat Bulaga by asking: “individually, What have they done to help people. Our program Eat Bulaga had been helping thousands of indigents daily for decades now”

Tito Sotto is counting beans. Beans not coming from his pocket personally but tangential benefits of program advertising necessary to promote the show.
The show would not have prospered if the producers did not dangle money as bait to watch the show. In Agriculture they call that “innovative fishing” by using attractive baits.

The money did not come from his pocket so he was not directly responsible to the awards. Yet, he is claiming personal credit. Besides, he was earning money to act in the show, so he was personally benefiting, not giving away anything.

Some of the commenters or posters may have helped indigents too in their own way. more important, it was voluntary, donated funds coming from their own pocket not out of their jobs unlike Sotto.

Here is another example of a deceptive Sotto. Fraudulent personal claim on charitable acts.

FEELINGS

Tito Vic and Joey actually has a song called Family Planning Department. This was from their Tough Hits album which came out in 1977 or 2 years after the claimed death of his son from alleged complications from contraceptives. And as can be expected , the song parodies Feelings originally by Morris Albert.

Surprising was his disrespect to his wife. He claimed Helen terribly suffered mentally on the early demise of a son, yet he parodied contraceptive pills on a song without thinking on the emotional impact it would cause on the spouse.

This song is another proof that Tito Sotto lied about the devastation of his family on the death of son from contraceptive side effect.

He claimed in his speech that for 37 years they were depressed on the outcome of the use of pills causing deep mental anguish. Yet just 2 years after his son’s death. Tito Sotto made fun of contraceptive pills. This is living documentary proof that his mental pain was fake along with his melodramatic tears during his speech. this song belied all his claims on the ill effects of pills on his son.

His fellow senators must denounce his incredulous act abusing his senate privileges by using the senate hall his platform in telling deception and lies.

How can he make, or sing, fun songs about family planning and contraceptives when his son just died two years before this, and he’s blaming contraceptives for the death of his son?

That is the real character of Tito Sotto! Insensitive to the agony of the wife and basher of women’s rights. The songs speak for themselves!

BIBLE VERSES

Sotto said he will not hold his online critics accountable. He said their accountability will be when “pag kinuha na sila ni Lord, mananagot sila doon hindi dito.”…and then he ends his speech leaving us with three Psalms to ponder: Psalms 56, 63, and 64.

I just love how he managed to turn Christian scripture into something that sounds like a threat. That’s so Christ-like of him.

WOW! Wrath of God descend upon the bloggers. He’s calling the wrath of God upon us!

In the Philippines, his words could be taken as an extrajudicial threat, a physical threat. He is turning into one scary dude.

Psalm 56 When the Philistines had seized him in Gath.

1 Be merciful to me, my God,
for my enemies are in hot pursuit;
all day long they press their attack.

2 My adversaries pursue me all day long;
in their pride many are attacking me.

3 When I am afraid, I put my trust in you.

4 In God, whose word I praise—
in God I trust and am not afraid.
What can mere mortals do to me?

5 All day long they twist my words;
all their schemes are for my ruin.

6 They conspire, they lurk,
they watch my steps,
hoping to take my life.

7 Because of their wickedness do not let them escape;
in your anger, God, bring the nations down.

8 Record my misery;
list my tears on your scroll —
are they not in your record?

9 Then my enemies will turn back
when I call for help.
By this I will know that God is for me.

10 In God, whose word I praise,
in the Lord, whose word I praise—

11 in God I trust and am not afraid.
What can man do to me?

12 I am under vows to you, my God;
I will present my thank offerings to you.

13 For you have delivered me from death
and my feet from stumbling,
that I may walk before God
in the light of life.

Psalm 63 A psalm of David. When he was in the Desert of Judah.

1 You, God, are my God, earnestly I seek you;
I thirst for you, my whole being longs for you,
in a dry and parched land where there is no water.

2 I have seen you in the sanctuary
and beheld your power and your glory.

3 Because your love is better than life,
my lips will glorify you.

4 I will praise you as long as I live,
and in your name I will lift up my hands.

5 I will be fully satisfied as with the richest of foods;
with singing lips my mouth will praise you.

6 On my bed I remember you;
I think of you through the watches of the night.

7 Because you are my help,
I sing in the shadow of your wings.

8 I cling to you;
your right hand upholds me.

9 Those who want to kill me will be destroyed;
they will go down to the depths of the earth.

10 They will be given over to the sword
and become food for jackals.

11 But the king will rejoice in God;
all who swear by God will glory in him,
while the mouths of liars will be silenced.

Psalm 64

1 Hear me, my God, as I voice my complaint;
protect my life from the threat of the enemy.

2 Hide me from the conspiracy of the wicked,
from the plots of evildoers.

3 They sharpen their tongues like swords
and aim cruel words like deadly arrows.

4 They shoot from ambush at the innocent;
they shoot suddenly, without fear.

5 They encourage each other in evil plans,
they talk about hiding their snares;
they say, “Who will see it?”

6 They plot injustice and say,
“We have devised a perfect plan!”
Surely the human mind and heart are cunning.

7 But God will shoot them with his arrows;
they will suddenly be struck down.

8 He will turn their own tongues against them
and bring them to ruin;
all who see them will shake their heads in scorn.

9 All people will fear;
they will proclaim the works of God
and ponder what he has done.

10 The righteous will rejoice in the Lord
and take refuge in him;
all the upright in heart will glory in him!

If it were possible to deliver a counter to the 14+ minutes of mind numbing fertilizer that came out of the good senator’s mouth, I’d quote this speech from the 1995 movie “Billy Madison”

There are actually quotes on plagiarism:

Jeremiah 23:30
Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, declares the Lord, who steal my words from one another.

Exodus 20:15
You shall not steal.

Since Tito Sotto included some Bible verse sa speech niya I think the proverbs below is more apt sa kanya:

Proverbs

8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you;
rebuke the wise and they will love you.

9 Instruct the wise and they will be wiser still;
teach the righteous and they will add to their learning.

Toilet humor brought him to fame His speeches contained the same Even using God’s name in vain Now his humor makes him insane

Wanbol University – enrollment on-going!

ARROGANCE

Wow. Tito’s absolutely oozing with an I-am-right-and-everyone-who-thinks-otherwise-can-go-eff-themselves sense of entitlement.

We don’t mind if hindi mo kami kilala, and don’t smirk while saying that because you really look so arrogant. I just hate that smirk, the look of “entitlement mentality” in his face. Our opinions regarding the issue (plagiarism and NOT RH Bill) should not be shut down. We all have a say here. Hindi rin kami nagdudunung-dunungan lang.

Sotto is too arrogant and proud to admit he made a mistake. Unlike the Philip Morris executive Robert Blair Carabuena who issued an apology already to the MMDA Traffic enforcer Saturnino Fabros even though deemed insincere, at least he was man enough to resort to humility to ease his legal burden and stop receiving the wrath of cyber peeps.

Mas gusto ng tao ang humble at willing to admit when he is wrong. Even if he (or his staff) meant no intentional dishonorable act, what is more important? – The people’s perception of you – or your own personal view of yourself?

People who are in position who do not accept their mistakes are not suppose to be elected again. If revenge is what they have against the person who has the courage to bring their mistakes to light, that is just a manifestation of how shallow is their way of thinking with regards to the people they are suppose to serve. People will come to love them more if instead of denying they will accept it. Erap did not deny that he has a lot of women in his life that is why they accepted him.

Tito Sotto hindi nyo po ba natutunan ang leksyon sa impeachment trial? If you believe that every blogger or people who use Twitter or Facebook are paid people to destroy your credibility, why not prove it? You accuse us then prove it!

He accused the RH proponents as well funded? I wonder if he bothered to check if the Anti-RH bill side is not using money?

Actually, every point he raised was and countered but he calls every counter-argument as malicious.

And I found it funny he tried to try to explain plagiarism when he should understand he did violate it. Ask Miriam, she said it occurs (without referring to Sotto) but said its not as grave as the academic ones.

Will admitting to his faults and apologizing for the fiasco made by his speech writers – paid by taxpayers’ money – make him a lesser person? Malalagasan ba ang bigote na simbolo ng kamachohan nya pag nag sorry siya?

Ang pride mo wala sa lugar Mr. Sotto! Just say SORRY and after that you can proceed with the RH Bill issue! That’s it!!! After that… done with plagiarism issue! *Good grief!*

Attention: Senator Sotto – PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE read all the comments from the BLOG SITES, FORUMS, SOCIAL MEDIA, ETC., – they are comments from Filipino voters and OPEN YOUR EYES AND MIND TO THE HARSH REALITY THAT ARROGANCE WILL BRING YOU NOWHERE……

Is it so humbling to own up to your mistake, apologize and get on with your life as a Senator? Why all this backlash?

But that’s only about the plagiarism part. There is more to that. Worse than that.

What’s worse than plagiarism is NOT vetting the source.

An older study cited by Sotto was questioned years later because the baseline data will not effectively result to a cause-and-effect conclusion as regards hormonal contraceptives and congenital cardiovascular defects. (Contraceptives causing congenital cardiac defects)

What’s worse than plagiarism is NOT digging deeper into the how-and-whys of cited source.

An idea cited by Sotto discredits the use of hormonal contraceptives when in the first place a hormonal contraceptive is just one of the many factors that can cause illness. The other factors that may cause such illness are commonplace compared to the use of hormonal contraceptives, for example, stress, infections, use of antibiotics, and poor diet which the author herself had given. (Contraceptives and gut dysbiosis)

What’s worse than plagiarism is NOT weighing the pros and cons; in appropriate terms, NOT obtaining the balance between the benefit and the risk of hormonal contraceptives AND just enumerate their ill effects.

The impression that is made publicly known by Sotto is that hormonal contraceptives is dangerous to women’s health when all the while current (and not outdated!) medical evidence points to their safety if used by women.

The risk-to-benefit ratio is so low that presently they are not banned in the market just like antibiotics. The benefit of contraception (Read: prevent unintended pregnancies) which is the primary goal of these drugs far outweigh the risk it may pose to women.

Sotto must first prove to the public that the risk-to-benefit ratio is high to even “criminalize” the use of hormonal contraceptives.

What’s worse than plagiarism is mimicking to be an authority on the issue of hormonal contraceptives.

Sotto’s haphazard research on the subject matter does NOT make him an authority. The consideration of just the negative effects of hormonal contraceptives in order to advance his motive does NOT make him an authority.

This situation is a logical fallacy called “Argumentum Ad Verecundiam” (argument from authority)—the misleading notion of appealing to the testimony of an authority outside his expertise, for example, a lawyer doing medical research. In Sotto’s case, a senator talking like a medical expert. It’s no worse than a celebrity advertising how good a pharmacy is.

At any given time, I would rather believe former DOH Secretary Cabral than relying on Sotto for medical information.

Yet he isolated the bad side of contraceptive use and made it into a speech for everyone to hear. Sotto is NOT against contraceptive use BUT went on to criticize his colleagues and a medical expert. Sotto is NOT against contraceptive use BUT went on to scare the public.

Does the doublespeak reek of uncertainty on his part? Does the doublespeak signify that his agenda may prove to be untenable because he is hiding the good side of contraceptive use?

Sotto cannot be relied upon because Sottoism is of the dangerous kind—even worse than what he claimed to be an existence of danger in the use of hormonal contraceptives.

Now known to the embattled senator, he himself was to blame for misrepresenting the GUTS study of Natasha Campbell-McBride. By declaring in his first speech, ‘According to …’ where in fact it was Sarah Pope’s paraphrase of Natasha Campbell-McBride’s idea or study from one of her books. It was not a direct quote from Natasha Campbell-McBride, but from a third hand source written for in a different context.

It is this folly of errs that Senator Sotto asked the Senate Chamber to strike out that reference from the Senate Journal. He was wrong, his staff took it out of context, and the senator read and made it part of his rebuttal, which in totality – renders his ‘turno en contra’ speeches INCREDIBLE!

THEY DIDN’T even READ A SINGLE BOOK from the original source or author.

1. Is plagiarism a crime? No, it is not, but it is a moral offence.
2. Did Sotto admit plagiarizing? Not directly, no. But his aide Villacorta in a letter to Pope did admit copying and offered an apology.
3. Did Sotto lie about copying a blogger? Yes, he did.
4. Has Sotto apologised? No, he has not.
5. What has been Sotto’s latest reactions?
5.1. Anti-blogger’s bill.
5.2. Purging the Senate record of his plagiarism.
5.3. Quoting the Bible for the destruction of his enemies.

*credit to all the forum threads, blogs, online newspapers, and social media peeps out there. I claim no credit to most of the contents and images that were compiled from many sources that are too many to mention.

now that the “cybercrime” bill had been passed, i promise to spread this blog, and many others like it, so that Filipinos will never forget this one crazy actor (i still refuse to call him a Senator) who resorted to anti cyberspace libel, crime, and bullying laws because he never quite understood that this was a case of CYBER JUSTICE all along.

lalo na ngayon, akala mo sotto maliligtas ka ng cybercrime law mo? trust me, i will PURPOSELY spread ALL FACTUAL news about what happened here, in regard to your goofball stunts. at pag ako nakasuhan ng libel? no way! this is not a fictional defamation of your sorry ass, these are facts im talking about and you yourself know it!

your proposed law will backfire against you, add the fact that spreading this issue will not be held liable against libel equals YOU better be ready..